← All Phrases

“associated enterprise”

Transfer PricingSection 92ASection 92A2,562 judgments

The decision most relied on for associated enterprise is CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd. (345 ITR 241), cited in 422 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on associated enterprise

CIT v. EKL Appliances Ltd.
345 ITR 241 · 2012 · High Court
422
citing judgments

Transfer pricing adjustments for outstanding receivables are permissible only if the Tax Officer establishes, through analysis over a period, a pattern indicating an international transaction intended to benefit an associated enterprise. The Tax Officer cannot question purely business decisions like royalty payments or exceed jurisdiction by applying cost-benefit analysis to determine the arm's length price of services.

Sassoon J. David & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT
118 ITR 261 · 1979 · Supreme Court
323
citing judgments

An expense incurred by an assessee for its own business, such as advertising, marketing, and promotional (AMP) expenses, cannot be disallowed merely because it incidentally or indirectly benefits the assessee's sister concerns or associated enterprises.

CIT v. Everest Kento Cylinders Ltd.
378 ITR 57 · 2015 · High Court
304
citing judgments

Corporate guarantee fees are subject to transfer pricing rules, and adjustments may be needed to account for differences between corporate guarantees and more liquid bank guarantees when determining arm's length price.

CIT v. Cotton Naturals (I) (P.) Ltd.
55 Taxmann.com 523 · 2015 · High Court
273
citing judgments

The interest rate for benchmarking foreign currency loans advanced to Associated Enterprises should be the market-determined rate applicable to the currency of the loan, such as LIBOR for US Dollar loans, rather than a domestic lending rate like the Indian PLR.

CIT v. Agnity India Technologies (P.) Ltd.
36 Taxmann.com 289 · 2013 · High Court
171
citing judgments

The Delhi High Court holds that Infosys Ltd. is not comparable to a captive software development service provider for transfer pricing analysis, given its huge turnover, high profit margins, ownership of intangible intellectual property rights, branded products, and differing risk profile.

DIT v. Morgan Stanley Co. Inc.
399 ITR 34 · 2017 · Supreme Court
162
citing judgments

Once a transfer pricing analysis has been undertaken for an Indian associated enterprise, no further profits are attributable to it as a Permanent Establishment, thereby extinguishing the need for additional profit attribution.

PCIT v. Redington (India) Ltd.
430 ITR 298 · 2021 · High Court
132
citing judgments

A corporate guarantee issued to Associated Enterprises (AEs) is an international transaction under Section 92B, requiring adjustments for guarantee commission due to inherent risk. The reasonable arm's length rate for benchmarking such corporate guarantees can be determined using internal or external comparable uncontrolled prices.

Sony India (P) Ltd. v. DCIT
114 ITD 448 · 2008 · ITAT
131
citing judgments

For transfer pricing purposes, functionally dissimilar entities that have significant business differences must be excluded from the list of comparables for benchmarking analysis. It also provides guidance on the non-allocation of advertisement, marketing, and promotion (AMP) expenses to other entities when incurred solely for the assessee's business.

Judgments citing associated enterprise

M/S Fmc India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed and appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2611/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. Fmc India Pvt. The Assistant Ltd., Commissioner Of Embassy Star 1St Floor, Income Tax, No. 8 Palace Road, Circle 3(1)(1), Bangalore – 560 052. Bangalore. Vs. Pan: Aaacf4579N Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2013-14 (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Nageswar Rao, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. S. Praveena, Cit Drp-2 Date Of Hearing : 07-07-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022 Order Per Beena Pillaipresent Cross Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee & Revenue Against Order Dated 23/07/2018 Passes By The Ld.Cit(A)-3, Bangalore For Assessment Year 2013-14 On Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. S. Praveena, CIT DRP-2
Section 250Section 37(1)

form of business development services, SAP Application Support Services, Human Resource Services and Regulatory Affair Management Services to its Associated Enterprises. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.11.2013 declaring loss of Rs.14,39,56,613/-. 2.2 The case was selected for scrutiny and notice ... other Grounds of appeal, the learned AO/TPO and the learned CIT(A) have erred in not restricting transfer pricing adjustments to transactions with Associated Enterprises, in the nature of purchase of materials, in proportion such transactions with Associated Enterprises bear to total operating cost of the Appellant. 17. The learned

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2068/BANG/2017[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Herbalife International India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Herbalife International India The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 250Section 253

length price with respect to the international transactions of the Appellant. International transaction relating to Export of Finished Goods to Associated Enterprise VAE") 2. Erred in making an upward TP adjustment of INR 7,75,62,042 to the international transaction of Export of Finished goods to AE. 3. Erred ... Appellant on account of adjustment to the arms length price with respect to the international transaction relating to payment of administrative fees to the Associated Enterprise ("AE"). 2. Erred in determining the arm's length value of administrative fees paid to AE as NIL without appreciating the commercial expediency

M/S Herbalife International India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-11(4), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2067/BANG/2017[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Sept 2022AY 2003-04

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2003-04 M/S. Herbalife International India The Deputy Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent & Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/S. Herbalife International India The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Commissioner Of #14, Pardhanani Income Tax, Wilshire, Circle – 11(4), Commissariat Road, Vs. Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaach8025R Appellant Respondent : Shri Padam Chand Assessee By Khincha, Ca Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 06-09-2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2022

For Respondent: Shri Padam Chand
Section 250Section 253

length price with respect to the international transactions of the Appellant. International transaction relating to Export of Finished Goods to Associated Enterprise VAE") 2. Erred in making an upward TP adjustment of INR 7,75,62,042 to the international transaction of Export of Finished goods to AE. 3. Erred ... Appellant on account of adjustment to the arms length price with respect to the international transaction relating to payment of administrative fees to the Associated Enterprise ("AE"). 2. Erred in determining the arm's length value of administrative fees paid to AE as NIL without appreciating the commercial expediency

M/S. Dell International Services India Private Limited ( Formerly Known As Dell Computer India Private Limited), Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 392/BANG/2021[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2022AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2004-05 M/S. Dell International Services The Deputy Commissioner Vs. India Pvt. Ltd., Of Income Tax, (Formerly Known As Dell Circle – 2(1)(1), Computer India Pvt. Ltd.,) Bengaluru. 12/1A, 12/2A, 13/1A, Diyashree Greens, Challaghatta Village, Varthur Hobli, Bengaluru-560 071. Pan : Aaach 1925 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bangalore Date Of Hearing : 26.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Final Order Of Assessment Dated 26.04.2021, Passed By The Dcit, Circle – 2(1)(1), Bengaluru, Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C R.W.S. 254 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called The ‘Act’) In Relation To Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Assessee Is The Subsidiary Of Dell International Usa & Is Engaged In The Provision Of Call Centre Support Services, Back-Office Support Services & Offshore Development Support Services [Software Development (“Swd”)] To Its Associated Enterprises (“Aes”). The Assessee Provided The Aforesaid Services To It(Tp)A No.392/Bang/2021 Page 2 Of 12

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore
Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92C

engaged in the provision of call centre support services, back-office support services and offshore development support services [Software Development (“SWD”)] to its associated enterprises (“AEs”). The assessee provided the aforesaid services to IT(TP)A No.392/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 12 its Associated Enterprise (AE’s) and therefore income from

Continuserve Softech India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 242/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.242/Bang/2021 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vs. Dcit, M/S. Continuserve Softech India Pvt. Ltd., Circle – 2(1)(1), Prathik Tech Park, 2Nd & 3Rd Floor, Bengaluru. Sy. No.93/1, Veerasandra Village, Attibele Hobli, Hosur Road, Electronic City Phase 1, Bengaluru – 560 100. Pan : Aaacc 8342 A Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N V Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Darpan Kirpalani, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)

wholly owned holding company. In terms of the provisions of Sec.92-A of the Act, the Assessee and its wholly owned holding company were Associated Enterprises IT(TP)A No.242/Bang/2021 Page 2 of 29 ("AEs"). In terms of Sec.92B(1) of the Act, the transaction of providing SWD Services ... international transaction” i.e., a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non- residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing

M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 2, Ltu, Bangalore

In the result, all these appeals are partly allowed

ITA 2593/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Sept 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A Nos. & Appellant Respondent Assessment Year 2593/Bang/2019 M/S. Te Connectivity India Private Limited, Acit, 2015-16 Te Park, 22B, Doddenakundi Corporation, Circle – 2, 2Nd Phase, Industrial Area, Large Taxpayer Unit, Whitefield Road, Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan: Aabct 7374 C 372/Bang/2021 -Do- -Do- 2016-17 200/Bang/2022 -Do- Dcit, Ltu, 2017-18 Circle – 2, Bengaluru. 716/Bang/2022 -Do- Acit, 2018-19 Circle – 7(1)(1), Bengaluru. Assessee By : Shri Sriram Seshadri, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan:

For Appellant: Shri Sriram Seshadri, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 92Section 92ASection 92F

services as a contract service provider to the Group. The transaction of providing services to the group companies was an international transaction with an associated enterprise (AE) and in terms of Sec.92 of the Act, income from international IT(TP)A Nos.2593/Bang/2019, 372/Bang/2021, 200 and 716/Bang/2022 Page ... transaction in uncontrolled conditions. Unrelated Persons; Section 92A, the persons said to be unrelated if they are not associated or deemed to be associated enterprise. Uncontrolled Conditions; are that conditions which are not controlled or suppressed or moulded for achievement of a predetermined results. 4. In Assessment Years

Royal Canin India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/CIT/Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre/Asst CIT-3(1)(1), Delhi

In the result, appeal by assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1298/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Sept 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singh आअसं. 1298/मुं/2021 ("न.व. 2016-17) Royal Canin India Private Limited, 1401&1402 F Wing, 14Th Floor, Lotus Corporate Park, Cts Nos. 185/A, Graham Firth Compund Western Highway, Goregaon(E), Mumbai 400 063 Pan: Aadcr-4417-J ..... अपीलाथ" /Appellant बनाम Vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax -3(1)(1) Room No.607, 6Th Floor,, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K.Road, Mumbai 400 020 ..... ""तवाद"/Respondent अपीलाथ" "वारा/ Appellant By : Shri Khirendra M. Gupta With Shri Akhil Goel. ""तवाद" "वारा/Respondent By : Ms. Vatsalaa Jha सुनवाई क" "त"थ/ Date Of Hearing : 27/06/2022 घोषणा क" "त"थ/ Date Of Pronouncement : 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm:

For Appellant: Shri Khirendra M. Gupta with Shri Akhil GoelFor Respondent: Ms. Vatsalaa Jha
Section 143(3)Section 271G

Royal Canin SAS, France on 29/03/2012. During the period relevant to assessment year under appeal, the assessee entered into various international transactions with its Associated Enterprise (AE) Royal Canin SAS. One of the international transaction was payment of franchise fee Rs.16,57,07,523/-. The assessee paid franchise

Mega Soft Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 733/CHNY/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri G. Manjunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.733/Chny/2017 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S.Mega Soft Ltd., V. The Dy. Commissioner – No.85, Kutchery Road, Of Income Tax, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004. Corporate Circle-4(1), Chennai. [Pan: Aabcm 8933 A] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By Mr.M.Muraleedhara Reddy,Ca & Mr.Nagaprasad, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Dr.S.Palani Kumar, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2022

For Respondent: Dr.S.Palani Kumar, CIT
Section 144(5)Section 144C(13)Section 92B

ground that TNMM is not the most appropriate method, the DRP/AO erred in making a separate upward adjustment on Corporate guarantee provided to the Associated Enterprise (AE) when adopting TNMM as most appropriate method. 8. The AO/DRP erred in not disclosing the standard filters used by him/them for choosing comparables ... Appellant. 15. Whether the AO/DRP is right in making upward adjustment on account of corporate guarantee provided by the Appellant to its Associated Enterprises? M/s.Mega Soft Ltd. :: 3 :: 16.Whether the AO/DRP is right in not disclosing the most appropriate method for determining Arm’s Length Price on provision of corporate

Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 307/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.307/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Level 10, Citrine Building Bagmane World Circle – 3(1)(1), Technology Centre, 4, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Mahadevpura, Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aahcm 2578 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee & Its Wholly

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

provisions of Sec.92-A of the Act, the assessee and its wholly IT(TP)A No.307/Bang/2022 Page 2 of 19 owned holding company were Associated Enterprises ("AEs"). In terms of Sec.92B(1) of the Act, the transaction of providing ITeS by the Assessee to it’s AE was an “international transaction ... transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature of purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses